Socialism

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by leviathon

No, the market is a mechanism by which the people can screw each other for some to gain. The governmnet is the people, and it looks out for the interests of all the people, so its the people deciding what's best for themselves without trying to screw each other over constantly.

I find this statement particularly interesting. My assumption is that you're in Europe? I could be wrong but going off of that assumption this statement is a bit troubling and a real head scratcher. Europe has seen first hand the failure of socialism and communism. In fact some of the most socialist countries in europe are becoming more and more capitalist because of the huge benefits it affords.

Arguing that markets are where people get screwed is blatantly false because in a free market people are FREE to accept the terms of a deal. If someone chooses to buy an item for a certain price that is not getting screwed, the product must have a value and that person just determined the products value to them.

Saying the government looks out for the interest of the people is only partly true. In socialist governments the corruption is terrible, far worse than even the US system which right now is absurdly corrupt. Yet corruption runs rampant in much of Europe and is terrible in places like Cuba and China that are still largely communist/socialist.

The assumption that people are trying to screw eachother is pretty new to me. People are trying ot make money but its the ever present threat of new innovation, new supply and competition that helps keep prices under control. If i have an option of buying a computer from dell for 900 dollars or an equivelant computer from HP for 1000 dollars I would choose the dell. That DOES NOT mean someone choosing the HP got screwed, it simply means there was something that made that computer more valuable to them or perhaps they did not do enough research into the product htey were purchasing. This is not the fault of HP its the fault of the purchaser.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by motivez

Chavez tried to prevent people from being able to challenge his power in that latest vote and was, thankfully for the people of Venezuela, voted down.

I will leave Levi to bat the rest of the questions but i simply cannot leave this unchallenged. What you have just said is simply 100% false.

Do you mean in the constitutional referendum ? I assume so. The reforms put forward in the referendum contrary to conventional wisdom did not look to make Chavez "leader for life". That particular ammendment looked to remove term limits. This doesn't mean that he would remain leader forever. It only meant he could stand for election as many times as he wished. That it would no longer be like the US where you can only stand twice. He wanted to make it more democratic, like the rest of the world, like France, like Britain, like Australia. In all these countries a President or Prime Minister can continually run for election, leaving it for the people to decide.

That simply is more democratic. It is quite undemocratic to forbid the people from electing who they wish. As much as i dislike George Bush, if the American people actually widhed to elect him a third time they should be allowed to. That is democracy.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I will leave Levi to bat the rest of the questions but i simply cannot leave this unchallenged. What you have just said is simply 100% false.

Do you mean in the constitutional referendum ? I assume so. The reforms put forward in the referendum contrary to conventional wisdom did not look to make Chavez "leader for life". That particular ammendment looked to remove term limits. This doesn't mean that he would remain leader forever. It only meant he could stand for election as many times as he wished. That it would no longer be like the US where you can only stand twice. He wanted to make it more democratic, like the rest of the world, like France, like Britain, like Australia. In all these countries a President or Prime Minister can continually run for election, leaving it for the people to decide.

That simply is more democratic. It is quite undemocratic to forbid the people from electing who they wish. As much as i dislike George Bush, if the American people actually widhed to elect him a third time they should be allowed to. That is democracy.

I'll not go into how much democracy sucks...

... but I will say that without term limits, someone who is able to fix elections can continue to do so. This happens a LOT in democracies in Eastern Europe especially.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'll not go into how much democracy sucks...

... but I will say that without term limits, someone who is able to fix elections can continue to do so. This happens a LOT in democracies in Eastern Europe especially.

Of course that can happen, but it does not happen iny of the countries i mentioned and many more. It also wouldn't happen in Venezuela due to the foreign interest in that country. Every election in Venezuela, be it presedential or regional elections and referendums are monitored closely by foreign observers, from the EU to OAS to the Carter Center.

With that said, whether one opposes term limits or not, i simply had to challenge the idea that so many have been tricked into believing that Chavez was setting himself up as some kind of leader for life.

[JaJae]

The problem I have with socialism is that it just doesn't seem to work out any better than we have here with free markets. In your examples of Cuba and Venezuala, the average poor person in America is better off here than over there... hence the reason they try to float here...

When being poor in this country is better than you'd be in a socialist country it makes me wonder if that's something I would want to be a part of. By and large it just doesn't seem to work and where it does work it tends to be a small homogeneous region under tightly controlled circumstances that really couldn't be replicated in America.

So while all the catch phrases to appeal to emotion regarding capitalism may have a hint of truth, the reality is, even in its worst of conditions it's probably still better off than if we went the socialist route. If it works elsewhere and the people are happy, all the more to them. But for America, I just don't see it being a viable system of government.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Of course that can happen, but it does not happen iny of the countries i mentioned and many more. It also wouldn't happen in Venezuela due to the foreign interest in that country. Every election in Venezuela, be it presedential or regional elections and referendums are monitored closely by foreign observers, from the EU to OAS to the Carter Center.

With that said, whether one opposes term limits or not, i simply had to challenge the idea that so many have been tricked into believing that Chavez was setting himself up as some kind of leader for life.

I can't help but call "naivety" when someone says "that wouldn't happen at X place." Nothing ever happens til it does...

And as far as "foreign interests" goes, that makes it MORE likely to happen. If a powerful country with lots of money has interest in the current person in power remaining in power, they can help achieve that.

That happens in American politics, except replace "foreign interest" with "business interest" and "powerful country" with "lobbyists representing lots of money."

Neither should happen. And if America's lifetime politicians doesn't prove that it CAN happen, I don't know what can. I mean, some of those guys are WAY crooked. I want MORE term limits

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I can't help but call "naivety" when someone says "that wouldn't happen at X place." Nothing ever happens til it does...

And as far as "foreign interests" goes, that makes it MORE likely to happen. If a powerful country with lots of money has interest in the current person in power remaining in power, they can help achieve that.

That happens in American politics, except replace "foreign interest" with "business interest" and "powerful country" with "lobbyists representing lots of money."

Neither should happen. And if America's lifetime politicians doesn't prove that it CAN happen, I don't know what can. I mean, some of those guys are WAY crooked. I want MORE term limits

But those foreign interests i mention are not interested in seeing the Chavez government remain in power. Most would love to see the back of him. They are there to satisfy the US and EU who want him out of office. They are their to find anything they can to say the guy is cheating, not to argue his case and fight for him.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The problem I have with socialism is that it just doesn't seem to work out any better than we have here with free markets. In your examples of Cuba and Venezuala, the average poor person in America is better off here than over there... hence the reason they try to float here...

When being poor in this country is better than you'd be in a socialist country it makes me wonder if that's something I would want to be a part of. By and large it just doesn't seem to work and where it does work it tends to be a small homogeneous region under tightly controlled circumstances that really couldn't be replicated in America.

So while all the catch phrases to appeal to emotion regarding capitalism may have a hint of truth, the reality is, even in its worst of conditions it's probably still better off than if we went the socialist route. If it works elsewhere and the people are happy, all the more to them. But for America, I just don't see it being a viable system of government.

I believe a bit of perspective is required here. In what way is the poor American better off than the average Cuban, Venezuelan or Soviet in their day ? Sure they have more money in their pocket and they can own more things. However, they are rarely as well educated, they rarely have the same access to health care, they dont have a cradle to the grave protection in case something goes wrong.

And if, i stress if the poor American is better off, why do you think that is ? Do you really believe it is down to a superior economic system ? Could it not have to do more with their neocolonial foreign policy ? The United states to me is not rich because of economics. It is rich because it is an international pariah, much like the UK. They are rich because they invad, plan coups, prop up friendly dictators. In return for this they recieve freedom to dominate that country economically, to pillage their resources, for their companies to go in and buy their oil and gas, to operate there with the cheap labour they find from the masses, to privatise everything under the sun. This wealth created in these countries the goes back to US banks accumulating interest, being loaned out to US citizens who then pay more interest. The taxes collected from these multi nationals however small they are, are then used to keep the US or UK poor happy. They get their schools and services, however sub standard they may be and keep them in a state of acceptance.

As Lenin once wrote, Imperialism is the highest form of capitalsim. It is this imperialism, or more correctly these days, neocolonialism that allows for a relatively comfortable life for the poorest in the capitalist societies.

[Ardentfrost]

I'll call bullshit on your "America is rich because they invade" thing b/c we were rich BEFORE we started invading. Invading is what causes our decreases in economic growth. The Iraq War has cost us some $700 billion to date. What a waste. The only thing that has supported us to this point is free market economics allowing our GDP to have consistent decent growth despite poor political and monetary policy.

But that's slowing down. As we turn more and more socialist and authoritarian, our economy suffers.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'll call bullshit on your "America is rich because they invade" thing b/c we were rich BEFORE we started invading. Invading is what causes our decreases in economic growth. The Iraq War has cost us some $700 billion to date. What a waste. The only thing that has supported us to this point is free market economics allowing our GDP to have consistent decent growth despite poor political and monetary policy.

But that's slowing down. As we turn more and more socialist and authoritarian, our economy suffers.

America, socialist ? That's news to me.

And i did not just say invasion, coups and propping up friendly dictators are much more common and effective.

If i can point you in the direction of this little link it will show you US interventionism has been long running, often such interventions had an imperialist basis, such as the Cuban invasion.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

I can never quite get my head round the idea that America used to be this holier than thou country that minded its own business and upheld liberty. This has never been the case. If wealth wasn't being accumulated by imperialism it was being acquired by slavery. Exploitation has always been at the heart of American success.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

America, socialist ? That's news to me.

And i did not just say invasion, coups and propping up friendly dictators are much more common and effective.

If i can point you in the direction of this little link it will show you US interventionism has been long running, often such interventions had an imperialist basis, such as the Cuban invasion.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

I can never quite get my head round the idea that America used to be this holier than the country that minded its own business and upheld liberty. This has never been the case. If wealth wasn't being accumulated by imperialism it was being acquired by slavery. Exploitation has always been at the heart of American success.

I certainly support a non-interventionist stand point, however what we *used* to do and what we have been doing for the past 60 years is night and day. What we did before 100 years ago is even less. America started and continued non-interventionist for a long time. The Civil War shifted a LOT of power in the government, and that's why you see increasing amount of interventionism since Reconstruction.

Either way, our interventionism has cost us far more than it has gained us (even if you don't count American lives lost). US interventionism cost over a million lives after Vietnam and threw two countries in complete turmoil. They were barely able to hold up themselves, much less trade goods on the open market afterward. While installing the Shah in Iran worked for 40 years, 1979 saw a complete undoing of that as fundamentalists took over the country. Since then we have spent billions in doing all those F'd up things we do to "enemy" countries (like assassination attempts, helping their enemies, fighting them secretly, etc...). The embargo with Cuba has only forced Americans to pay more for goods such as sugar than we otherwise would have had to. By preventing those lanes of trade from happening, the entire economy is worse off (though idiots who need to learn the implications of the Broken Window Fallacy may claim the money was well spent since it went to American farmers).

That list goes on and on. America is made no better economically by being involved. Half of all our government expenditures go to military because we feel we need to maintain bases in some 200 countries. Interventionism is idiotic economically, and that's usually the reason used to intervene.

And while America isn't socialist as you perceive the term, we have been increasing our level of socialism over the past century. Some 15% of our population is currently employed directly by the government. Through executive order, the past century has seen a vast increase in size of government. Rates of welfare and government paid health care have also increased. Education is already socialized. The evidence of our movement toward that end is painfully clear.

[thatguyoverthere]

Only a few people have bothered to engage in the discussion on this thread honestly trying to discuss and exchange ideas, while others seem to prefer one liners and smilies.

I hope we get something like universal health care here in America soon, and when someone whines about how socialist it is be forced to pay for someone else's health care, I hope that for all eternity the only reply they ever hear is "Life's not fair, too fucking bad."

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I can never quite get my head round the idea that America used to be this holier than thou country that minded its own business and upheld liberty. This has never been the case. If wealth wasn't being accumulated by imperialism it was being acquired by slavery. Exploitation has always been at the heart of American success.

I don't think anyone has suggested America is perfect, far from it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I believe a bit of perspective is required here. In what way is the poor American better off than the average Cuban, Venezuelan or Soviet in their day ? Sure they have more money in their pocket and they can own more things. However, they are rarely as well educated, they rarely have the same access to health care, they dont have a cradle to the grave protection in case something goes wrong.

I think a bit of perspective may be needed on both sides. You're cherry picking two socialist nations out of dozens that have moderately adequate health care for the common citizen and provide little else. By and large if you take all socialist nations as a whole and compare the quality of life to the average American you'll find a clear difference. If I had the option of being an average citizen of Venezuala/Cuba or a poor American the answer would be a no brainer for me and even them.. hence our influx of immigration. I don't know of any poor Americans who had dreams of going to Cuba or Venezuala. We do have programs in America such as subsidized housing, medical care, food stamps, etc. The poor in this country have air conditioning, quite often own their own homes (3 bdr), have decent living space, numerous tvs and amenities, etc. Would I give that up to live in Cuba under rule of a dictator? No.

And if, i stress if the poor American is better off, why do you think that is ? Do you really believe it is down to a superior economic system ?

Have you ever watched Sesame Street when you were a kid? They used to sing a song that went something like "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong." And the task of the viewer was to look at the items in front of them and pick which one was glaringly different. When dealing with the economics of a country I think it's a safe bet to assume that the economic system is a key target to scrutinize. And when ones with a certain economic system tend to stand out above the others I think it's fair to assess a reasoned response.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. If they were truly better off than we are, they wouldn't be looking to come here and our poor would be looking to go there. But we know that's just simply not the case.

[7960]

Originally Posted by leviathon

There is a quote:

That will suffice as my answer, and despite being written of a society thousands of years old is still relevant today.

See above about being poor not taking away rights or freedoms. Yeah, it is ignorant, but like you said life's not fair.

That's all well and good, except being poor in this society does not take away rights or freedoms.

It shows how your answer lacks logic, just because life is unfair does not mean we shouldn't work to rectify it as much as possible.

My answer is perfectly logical. Your answer, that we should be modern day robin hoods and take from the rich to give to the poor is confusing. What incentive is there to achieve when ultimately the govt is going to come in and tell you "no matter, *this* is what we'll allow you to have"?

Well Venezuela would be a prime example for the moment.

Wow. Chavez admires castro. His last swearing in ceremony he repeated castro's slogans, he has stated his admiration for castro and cuba.......cuba is hardly a prime example of socialism at its best and chavez loves it. After he's done trying to become venezuela's elected dictator we'll see where he actually takes the country.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of socialism, think of what Marx said, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilities.

Yeah, that's not what he said.

But anyway what marx said implies people who can be doctors will be and people who can only be ditch diggers will be and they'll do it happily and the govt will provide for them. Again, why be a doctor? Where's the incentive?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

But anyway what marx said implies people who can be doctors will be and people who can only be ditch diggers will be and they'll do it happily and the govt will provide for them. Again, why be a doctor? Where's the incentive?

I want to take a moment to speculate on the opposing view...

It seems to me that Socialists believe that people will do the jobs they love under their system, and therefore everyone will be happy. If someone loves to help people and do doctor stuff, that person will become a doctor and be happy, the end.

Of course, the problem with this is lots of people (well, at least in America) don't do what they REALLY wanted to do in life because of the lack of money in the field. Originally I was going to major in music because that's what I loved. The lack of money prevented that from happening, and now I do engineering. I enjoy what I do NOW, but I never would have done it if I could have just picked my favorite job. My wife got her master's in marine ecology because she loved biology. But there is no money in it and that field is overpopulated with people (those two things obviously being related). So she changed careers and now does engineering. Not her first choice, but she gets FAR more money doing it, and is happy doing it.

If everyone was able to just pick what they like to do and could just do that with no consequence of overpopulation in that field, everyone would be musicians and writers. No one would do the stuff that makes society run.

And since I have worked blue collar jobs in the past, I also have insight into why people do those jobs happily... it's because they do not identify themselves by their job. If they can make a living shoveling shit, and it affords them to raise a family and spend time with them, then they are happy. The job is just a means to a family, and they don't NEED an education or to try really hard to get what they want out of life (those things would actually get in the way of what they want).

It seems to me under a socialist country, MORE people would be likely to do those things... just the bare minimum since they can't move ahead anyway. Priorities change. A job would just be a job, no reason to try at it or move up or anything. Their new focus would be on personal issues like having a family.

And there is NOTHING wrong with that. I respect those people who shovel shit for a living because all they want is to go home to their wife and kids. However, a society cannot be held up by a bunch of people like that. You have to have the ambitious to move forward.

America rewards the ambitious with money and promotions. For those who identify themselves by their jobs and need to feel the reward of increasing their status in life (I can only assume this would be most of us since we're arguing politics), there is money to be made, pats on the back, discovery, notoriety, or whatever else it is that makes YOU want to work hard.

The beauty of the system is that both types of people are equally rewarded in America. Both can be happy because they are able to choose what is important to them and pursue it.

Socialism muddles that.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think a bit of perspective may be needed on both sides. You're cherry picking two socialist nations out of dozens that have moderately adequate health care for the common citizen and provide little else. By and large if you take all socialist nations as a whole and compare the quality of life to the average American you'll find a clear difference. If I had the option of being an average citizen of Venezuala/Cuba or a poor American the answer would be a no brainer for me and even them.. hence our influx of immigration. I don't know of any poor Americans who had dreams of going to Cuba or Venezuala. We do have programs in America such as subsidized housing, medical care, food stamps, etc. The poor in this country have air conditioning, quite often own their own homes (3 bdr), have decent living space, numerous tvs and amenities, etc. Would I give that up to live in Cuba under rule of a dictator? No.


Have you ever watched Sesame Street when you were a kid? They used to sing a song that went something like "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong." And the task of the viewer was to look at the items in front of them and pick which one was glaringly different. When dealing with the economics of a country I think it's a safe bet to assume that the economic system is a key target to scrutinize. And when ones with a certain economic system tend to stand out above the others I think it's fair to assess a reasoned response.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. If they were truly better off than we are, they wouldn't be looking to come here and our poor would be looking to go there. But we know that's just simply not the case.

I take it you have never heard of a guy known as the King of the Congas ? He was a black American musician who fled racism in the US to kive in Cuba free from the widespread racism he previously endured.

I would also say that Cuba is a notoriously difficult country to emigrate to. They are still at war. The cold war hasnt ended for them and they have to be very cautious when dealing with immigration.

And i believe you have failed to understand the power of the propgandists. The US and capitalist world are cleerly wining the propaganda war. They wont let people know about good stories from Cuba, the successes are rarely known and a whole heap of misinformation is put out there.

It is personally my dream to emmigrate to Cuba. I hope that within the next 5-10 years i will have acquired the skills and trust to be able to do so.